About two or three RMCF meetings ago, Tom Aanerud, an RMCF Board member who manages the lending library, gave me a copy of an article from the Chemical and Engineering News magazine entitled, “With Protocells, Scientists Probe the Chemistry that Started Biology.” The thrust of this article was, “Researchers design cell-­‐like compartments to ﬁgure out how Earth’s ﬁrst cells might have developed.”

You may recall that in the Oct/Nov. 2015 RMCF Newsletter, the President’s Corner addressed the proposal on how life evolved on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. The conclusion was that the mere production of amino acids, nucleic acids, etc. is far removed from producing functional proteins, DNA, RNA, etc., which are required for cells to exist.

In the C&EN article referenced above (C&EN.ACS.ORG, February 29, 2016), Dr. Sugawara and co-­‐workers at Kanagawa University, designed protocells consisting of bacteria-­‐sized lipid vesicles, which contain phospholipids, polymerase enzymes and DNA, to replicate DNA[1]. These membranes also contain another cationic lipid plus an amphipathic catalyst. The latter forms a complex with DNA and the cationic lipid, which generates more lipids from precursor molecules.

One of the major objections to this process, as pointed out by other evolutionists, is the requirement of an external stimulus to activate the process. In all real cells, duplication is an internal process. Noble Laureate Dr. Jack Szostak, Harvard Medical School, said it is not a way of doing cell division without enzymes and complete RNA replication. Of course the major objection is the use of pre-­‐ existing DNA, RNA etc., which evolution would require to have already been evolved. However, the evidence against the evolution of these essential biomolecules is overwhelming. Consequently, we are back to the same old misguided belief that the evolution of these biomolecules essential to cells is already accepted for the protocells to form and duplicate.

]]>eaboudre@yahoo.com (Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux)President's CornerSun, 15 May 2016 00:00:00 +0000Evolutionists Claim to Have Solved How Life Began on Earth 4.5 Billion Years Agohttp://youngearth.org/index.php/archives/presidents-corner/item/57-evolutionists-claim-to-have-solved-how-life-began-on-earth-4-5-billion-years-ago
http://youngearth.org/index.php/archives/presidents-corner/item/57-evolutionists-claim-to-have-solved-how-life-began-on-earth-4-5-billion-years-ago

Chemists at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge University, England, recently reported that they were able to experimentally map out numerous reactions, producing 2- and 3- carbon atom sugars, various amino acids, more than 50 nucleic acids and glycerol[1]. All of these constitute the basic building blocks for producing proteins, RNA and DNA, as well as lipids, which form cell membranes.

These experiments were conducted by reacting hydrogen sulfide (H2S) with hydrogen cyanide (HCN), in the presence of ultraviolet light and a Cu(1+) â†” Cu(2+) photo redox catalyst [1]. It has been furthered prophesied , that if this study stands up to scrutiny, it will be hailed as one of the greatest accomplishments of our time.

In another recent study, researchers at Georgia Tech and the Scripps Research Institute in California, through their affiliation with the National Science Foundation and NASA, showed that reacting an alpha- hydroxy acid with an alpha-amino acid, produces depsipeptides up to 10 units long [2].

All I have to say about this is, SO WHAT ? It has been thoroughly established that the formation of amino acids, nucleic acids, etc., by any process, is a far cry from producing proteins, RNA, DNA, etc.. Hence, how ridiculous is it to claim that the work reported in reference [1], should be â€œhailed as one of the greatest achievements of our timeâ€?

All of this is no more significant that the earlier works of Urey, Miller, Fox and others in the 1950s â€“1960s, which has already been debunked by Boudreaux and De Massa in 2010 [3].

It never ceases to amaze me, that supposedly intelligent scientists, do actually believe that the unique complexity found in proteins, DNA, RNA, cells, could have spontaneously been accomplished from the basic building blocks of these intelligently designed biomolecules.

Let us not forget what Paul has said about such people: â€œAlthough they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images (i.e. evolution)â€¦â€ Romans 1:21-23.

The last RMCF Speaker, David Rives, included the bombardier beetle as one of the examples in his June 12 RMCF presentation. I realize this is not a new topic for most of you, but there is some new, timely data, about the beetleâ€™s explosive mechanism, presented in the Chemical and Engineering News Magazine (CEN), May 4, 2015.

Using synchrotron X-ray imaging, details of the beetleâ€™s explosive defense mechanism were recorded for the first time 1 . The pygidial glands are associated with three major components: a reservoirchamber, reaction chamber, and exit chamber. The reservoir chamber contains an aqueous solution of 25% hydrogen peroxide (oxidizing agent), 10% p-hydroquinone (powerful oxidants), and 10% alkanes (carbon/hydrogen compounds for fuel). The reaction chamber contains catalase and peroxidase enzymes, which control and regulate the beetleâ€™s explosive process.

When a predator is encountered, the beetle goes into its defense mode and instantaneously transfers the reservoir solution into the reaction chamber. The p-hydroquinones are converted into p-benzo-quinones, plus oxygen and heat, to combust the alkanes. The water vaporizes, creating intense pressure (regulated by the enzymes) at a temperature of 100 deg C. A flame issues out of the exit chamber at a velocity of 10 m/sec and pulses at a frequency of 700 Hz. However, the way in which the beetle is able to control these functions has remained a mystery.

Dr. Andrew McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics, University of Leeds in England, had proposed that valves within the pygidialglands play the role of controlling the explosion.The most recent studies, done in collaboration with MIT, U. of Arizona, and Brookhaven National Laboratories, involved anesthetizing the beetle in a cold environment, while initiating the beetle to activate its explosive process. Synchrotron X-ray images were taken ranging from 30 to 2000 frames/second(see X-ray video at http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i18/Beetles-Explosive-Spray-Mechanism-Revealed.html ).

What was observed was that the solution from the reservoir chamber is delivered into the reaction chamber in five nanoliter droplets. The pressure is precisely controlled by a valve which closes and reopens for every cycle in the explosion. (see diagram below)

If this is not a truly amazing of Godâ€™s irreducible complex designs, then I donâ€™t know what is!

There is absolutely no way any of these components within the bombardier beetle could have evolved in sequential increments, because the beetle would not have survived the process.

Blessings in His Holy Name, Ed

Dr. Ed Boudreaux, RMCF President

1. Science 2013, DOI:10.1126/science/1261166

]]>eaboudre@yahoo.com (Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux)President's CornerMon, 13 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0000Discovery of Water on the Moon Demolishes the Theory of its Formationhttp://youngearth.org/index.php/archives/presidents-corner/item/55-discovery-of-water-on-the-moon-demolishes-the-theory-of-its-formation
http://youngearth.org/index.php/archives/presidents-corner/item/55-discovery-of-water-on-the-moon-demolishes-the-theory-of-its-formation

In arecent CMI commentary posted by Jonathan Oâ€™Brien, on 3/23/2015, at http://creation.com water-in-moon, it was pointed out that cosmologists at the University of Michigan, found chemically bound water inside moon rocks, which were originally collected during the 1970s, when these rocks were returned to earth.

This recent finding creates a significant problem regarding the evolutionary theory of the Moonâ€™s formation. According to the accepted model, the Moon was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, when hot, molten material on the earth blasted away and the resulting particles coalesced to form the Moon. If water had been there during that event, it would all have boiled away. Consequently, the Moon would have been dry and no waterwould have been present. The net result is that secular scientists are flummoxed by this recent discovery, which forces them to declare that the Moonâ€™s formation is now a mystery.

In the 1970s, when the Moon rocks were first examined, there was no report of the presence of water. One possible explanation could have been, that the investigators were already convinced of the theory of the Moonâ€™s formation; hence, no water would have been anticipated in those rock samples. However, recent investigations on these Moon rocks, revealed the presence of relatively large amounts of water. This water is as much as that found in the basalt under the Earthâ€™s ocean sea floor in the mid-ocean ridges.

The book â€œGod Created the Earth,â€ by E. A. Boudreaux and E. C. Baxter, starts with a Biblical foundation, that the Earth was formed out of water (Genesis 1: 2 and 2 Peter 3: 3-5). This very same model could be applied to the formation of all heavenly bodies, including planets and moons. The Bible clearly states in Genesis 1: 16 that the Earthâ€™s Moon was created on Day 4 of creation about 6000 years ago, not 4.5 billion years.

We have only to accept the Word of God, which always provides the Truth.

As a theoretical quantum chemist and chemical physicist, I had always had a keen interest in nuclear physics. The standard models accepted by nuclear physicists, by and large, involve Strong Forces operating between protons (p+) represented as point charges, so as to overcome the enormous repulsive forces present at very short inter-proton distances within the atomic nucleus. Also Weak Forces are proposed to operate between neutrons, which accounts for beta (Î²-)decay and Electron Capture (EC) mechanisms .These are the Standard Model (SM) coupled with Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED), for the current theory of nuclear structures.

During the 1980s-1990s, Dr. Charles Lucas Jr.(mathematician and physicist) and David Bergman MS (physics), founders of the Common Sense Science Ministry, proposed models for electrons and protons, in which these particles were not point charges, but had toroidal geometries with finite dimensions and only electromagnetic forces operating between them. These were like very thin, tiny, electrically charge washers, which were free to rotate and vibrate.

In the 1990â€™s, my research associate, Eric Baxter, and I decided to test this Lucas/ Bergman model, conducting theoretical calculations on arrays of toroidal electrons and protons in the atomic nucleus. In this model neutrons do not exist in the atomic nucleus as independent particles, but rather are paired combinations of electrons (e-) and protons (p+). This does allow for neutrons as particles to be expelled from the nucleus, but free neutrons have a very short half-life. All combinations of electrical and magnetic forces were included in these calculations. There was no inclusion of Strong or Weak Forces in this model. Details of these calculations may be found in reference [1]. To our amazement, the resulting calculations of nuclear binding energies and decay rates of select isotopes, for beta (Î²-) and alpha (Î±4+) decay processes, were all inexcellent agreement with experimental values. These results are to be compared to those calculated by the SM, which were too frequently in error by 20-30 %, and in some cases even worse, when compared to experimental values. The obvious conclusion from our studies was that no nuclear Strong Forces or Weak Forces were required to account for nuclear structures and related processes.

In February, 2015, Dr. Charles Lucas, Jr. published a paper challenging the current model of nuclear physics [2]. The proposed nuclear Strong Force is a 1/Rn dependence, in which nâ‰¥3. However, Lucas showed from experimental data, that the trend for Atomic Mass vs. Atomic Number in the 180-181 mass range, was a regular parabolic curve, having a solution as a quadratic equation, which strongly implies a second power 1/r2 dependence of the electrodynamic force. Consequently, the nuclear Strong Force is simply not operating. Lucas also showed from experimental data, that the nuclear Weak Force could not be operating, either.

In conclusion, it appears from the studies of Boudreaux and Baxter, and those of Lucas, that the modern, accepted model of nuclear structure is invalid.

In the Denver Post, Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2014, reporter Ishaan Tharoor for the Washington Post, wrote a report on Pope Francisâ€™ recent address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. This article states that the Pope appeared to endorse Big Bang cosmology, by saying there was no contradiction between believing in God as well as prevailing scientific theories. According to Tharoor, the Pope went on to say,â€ God is not a divine being (emphasis added) or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life.â€ â€œEvolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.â€

This article also states that over the past 60 years, since Pope Pius XII, the Catholic Church has espoused belief in Theistic Evolution. Also, in a 2006 Vatican news report, the Catholic Church distanced itself from â€œintelligent designâ€, in which it stated that this should not be taught in schools as science.

However, what the Catholic Church does insist is that the emergence of humans supposes a willful act of God, and man cannot be seen as only the product of evolution.

What I have presented above is a condensed version of the entire article. In my opinion, the Pope is endorsing both Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism. But what is even more disturbing is for Pope Francis to say,â€œ God is not a divine being, etc.â€ If this is an accurate quote, then this statement is clearly blasphemous, since one of Godâ€™s essential attributes is that He is Divine. I would hope that the Popeâ€™s statement was misquoted, and that it may have been something like, â€˜God is not just a divine magician...etc.â€™

In any case, it is indeed saddening that the authoritative position of Catholic Church has become entrenched in the acceptance of theistic evolution as a compromise for the accurate interpretation of the Genesis Creation account. Apparently, the Catholic authorities have completely ignored the numerous creation publications, which clearly refute theistic evolution as an acceptable alternative to the Scriptural account of creation.

A true Christian knows that Godâ€™s Word, as communicated to us in Scripture, is always accurate and true. Since the inspired Word of God was directed to humans under the preservation of the Holy Spirit, God said precisely what He meant to say, which was recorded with total accuracy. The Genesis account of creation is factual history, not just a narrative subject to reinterpretation.

In the June 9, 2014 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, page 28, thereâ€™s an article entitled â€œThe Moonâ€™s Big Impactâ€, which is a condensed account of a publication in Science, 2014 DOI: 10,11261/science 125117. This paper focuses on an existing hypothesis, that a moon sized body called Theia collided with the earth billions of years ago. The fragments resulting from the explosion of Theia were supposed to have coalesced (via some unconfirmed physical process--comment added by this author) to form the modern-day moon.

According to this publication, the standard marker for comparing moon rocks with those of earth or meteorites is the oxygen isotope, O-17, with the isotope, O-16. The ratio: O-17/ O-16 has a characteristic value common to bodies of earth-like planets within the Solar System. Oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth's crust, having three isotopes with values presented in the following table, which shows isotope percentages from three samples each for the earth and moon.

Table Footnotes:a. Oceanic plus terrestrial crust; b. "Inorganic Geochemisrty", P. Henderson, 1986, Pergamon Press; c. "Chemistry of the Elements", N. N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw, 1980, Pergamon Press; d. Significant figures based on instrumental accuracy only, not on accuracy of O content in the samples; e. Values not reported but inferred from other reported values; f. From references within Table 3.4, page 56, of reference b.The average O-17/O-16 ratios are 0.00038 +/- 0.0001 and 0.00038(3) +/- 0.0001 for earth and moon respectively. According to the publication, the ratios obtained from freshly prepared moon-rocks were shifted to 0.00039(2), from the 0.00038 average found in earth samples. This is only a 2.6 % difference, which is well within the variation in values presented in the above table. Nonetheless, the publication maintains that this difference provides support for the Theia impact hypothesis of the moon's formation. My question is WHY? The reported variation in the O-17/ O-16 ratio is masked by the inconsistencies in the raw data themselves !The real answer to the moon's formation comes from the Bible, Genesis 1: 16-18, which clearly states that the Moon, along with the Sun, was created on the 4th Day, just some 6,000 years ago, not by some impact on the earth billions of years ago.

Our multi-tasking Board member Bill Browning passed on to me the content of what I am about to share and with which I am in total agreement. I shall initiate this message with a statement made in the latter part of a report given by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, which asserts that our gospel and faith is not a teaching or philosophy, but it is primarily history.

The question often arises, why should we care about the specific details of creation? Also, is this essential to our salvation? If we believe the Bible is actually the Word of God, then we must accept all of it as it is presented to us, which is actually history (accurate account of past events). This is precisely what Genesis provides from the time of God's creation and onward. Hence, the Bible must be accepted as "one complete whole", in terms of accuracy and authenticity, from Genesis through Revelation. No one is entitled to the levity of picking and choosing from Scripture as desired. The Old Testament is a witness to the New Testament and vice versa (my comment). Consider what Paul says in Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15, regarding the origin of sin and God's solution to it, in which Paul is referring directly to Genesis. While it cannot be denied that great scientific minds have made definitive and dogmatic statements in the past, subsequently they have often been proven to be untrue. For example, it had been claimed for a long time that the thyroid and pituitary glands were vestigial (unessential) organs: however, it was later shown that this claim was completely false. Case in point, it is exceedingly dangerous to base the exposition of Scripture on pronouncement of science. (What follows are my comments). Remember, true science exists because God has caused it to be in the first place. It does not exist independent of God, who is its sole author. Statements made in Scripture are infallible, while the proclamations of science are forever subject to change. What science provides are the fruits of the labors of fallible men. Absolute truth can only be derived for an ever present, infallible source, i.e. God. Consequently, it is by no means acceptable to attempt an amalgamation of what purports to be science with the words of Scripture; more specifically, belief in Theistic Evolution is an oxymoron. We must either accept the historical account of Scripture as it is presented to us, or we must deny it. There can be no compromises.

I thought it important, as the RMCF President, that the space allotted for the Presidentâ€™s Corner in this issue of the RMCF Newsletter, be devoted to a topic not associated with creationism per se.

On Monday, Feb.17, 2014, The Denver Post published an article (page 15A) initiated by Simon Denyer, of the The Washington Post, reporting on a presentation John Kerry gave in Jakarta, Indonesia on Sunday, Feb. 16, 2014. The title of this talk as stated in The Denver Post was, â€œKERRY CALLS FOR ACTION, Climate change is a â€˜weapon of mass destructionâ€™ he says in Indonesiaâ€. As might be anticipated, Kerryâ€™s talk focused on what he regards as the reality of climate change, the seriousness of its effects, and an urgent need for immediate action. But the part of Kerryâ€™s presentation which disturbs me the most is the statement, â€œ He labeled those who denied the evidence of climate change as â€˜shoddy scientists and extreme ideologuesâ€™.â€ (emphasis added). Consequently, I sent for publication in The Denver Post a letter to the editor, challenging Kerryâ€™s derogatory remarks about scientists who do not agree on climate change. As might have been anticipated, the news paper did not publish my letter (even after reducing it to less than 150 words); hence, Kerryâ€™s label of â€œshoddyâ€ scientists remains unchallenged in the press. Undoubtedly, no letters challenging Kerryâ€™s comments were published, as evidenced in subsequent editions of The Denver Post.

Naturally, I am aware that most RMCF regular attendees have no questions about my credentials as a scientist and creationist; but, for the sake of the record, I think my letter, unpublished by The Denver Post, should be documented for all on the RMCF mailing list. Please donâ€™t misunderstand me, I am NOT trying to â€˜blow my own hornâ€™ or â€˜puffâ€™ myself up; on the contrary, I am taking a stand against Kerryâ€™s assertions not only against me, but against all other scientists who challenge climate change as I do. My letter follows:

John Kerry Insults Reputable Scientists

In the Denver Post, 2/17/14, John Kerry, a nonscientist, is quoted as having called reputable scientists, such as myself, as being â€œshoddy and extreme ideologues.â€ I hold PhD and MS degrees in chemistry from Tulane University, an Ivy League institution. Furthermore, after 29 active years in graduate education and research, I have published over 50 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals, plus books and reviews. This is hardly the hallmark of a â€œshoddyâ€ scientist. In his Indonesian presentation, Kerry merely regurgitated the same old arguments initiated some 30 years ago, warning of global catastrophes resulting from carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. However, to this date, none of these predictions have been realized. I have prepared an in-depth study of the sources of CO2 atmospheric pollution, and found that no significant increase of CO2 has occurred up to 2009.
A copy of this report is available by requesting via eaboudre@yahoo.com.

This is the final installment of President's Corners regarding Willard Young's book, "Fallacies of Creationism."

Chapter 11, entitled â€œIs Evolution Possible?â€, may be summarized by Youngâ€™s claim that the laws of nature do not negate evolution, even though there is nothing within the laws of nature providing valid scientific evidence in support of evolution. Young concludes this chapter by intimating that the only scientific argument creationists use to challenge evolution is thermodynamics. According to Young, the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows either for a decrease or increase in the order of any system undergoing change. This chapter is concluded with Youngâ€™s statement, â€œentropy provides a measure of the amount of energy to do work in an isolated system.â€ This statement is totally misleading, because the amount of energy available to do work in ANY system is the difference between the energy content (enthalpy) of the system and the energy due to the entropy of the system. Furthermore, as any informed creationist knows, thermodynamics is NOT the only scientific tool used by creationists to challenge evolution.

In chapter 12 Young addresses the origin of life. There is no new information provided here. The same old theories of proteins evolving from amino acids and DNA, RNA evolving from the appropriate nucleotide bases are regurgitated all over again. It has long since been thoroughly documented that such evolutionary processes are utterly impossible. Young goes on the state that most recent research (circa 1980s) confirms a principle of self organization at the simple prebiotic level. However, none such evidence was ever provided in the 1980s or at any other subsequent time. Although the laws of probability deal the evolution of life a serious blow, Young attempts to circumvent this by stating that biological evolution is â€œguided by regulating mechanisms, not by pure chance.â€ The following questions arise: What are these mechanisms? Where did the mechanisms come from? What valid scientific evidence is provided in support of them? The answer to all of these questions is there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence in support of such mechanisms. Even if such mechanisms were true, they would have to have been derived by a higher intelligence, which is not accepted by evolutionists.

The most blatant falsehood stated by Young is the following, â€œModern theory (evolution) explaining the general steps by which matter may have become organized into living organisms is therefore not simply an unfounded invention of a fertile imagination. Experiment has become the beacon by which theory is guided on the right course.â€ Of course there are NO valid scientific experiments to lead evolution on the â€˜right courseâ€™.

In conclusion, it may be safely asserted that this bookâ€™s attempts to point out the fallacies of creationism, while providing so called support for evolutionism, have failed miserably.